Author
Topic: Robots and their impact on the future (Read 363776 times)

Now I almost feel bad for mentioning the pilots and automation bit. This thread kind of went all off kilter. So I'll try to bring it back on topic. I didn't realize we had so many aerospace related people here.

So it seems that everyone is kind of in agreement with the FAA, in that automation in airplanes have a tendency to reduce either the pilot skill, or the pilot training. So one could draw a line blaming our current implementation of automation to failures. So do all of you think that we need less automation in airplanes, or better automation and remove the human from the equation?

Sorry if I derailed the thread a bit. I think automation will drastically change the profession over the next 50 years. The first step will be single pilot airliners. Based on trends in aviation I'm guessing this could be only a couple decades away from becoming a reality. Much more reliance on automation, with a pilot there to monitor and take over in the case of major failures and deal with issues like deciding whether to divert for passenger disruptions or medical issues. Basically just a supervisor for the aircraft. Eventually, once automated cargo drones are commonplace and advanced communications systems allow, the pilot will be sitting on the ground like drone operators today. Maybe they'll monitor a few flights at a time, able to remotely control the aircraft if necessary.

It seems to me the plane discussion is not so different from what is happening with cars.

The more features get added - from seatbelts and airbags and anti-lock brakes, to lane correction and brake assist, the more reckless and careless drivers are.

I know with antilock brakes specifically, tests show they improve stopping distance and emergency braking control significantly, but statistics show zero reduction in accidents or fatalities. People just drive faster, tailgate more, and start stopping later, because they feel confident they can stop.

It won't be until the robots take over 100% from people that accident rates actually start going down.

And, just like with planes, a lot of this has to do with grossly inadequate training. We just don't take driving seriously. There isn't any requirement for simulated accident avoidance at all to get a drivers license.Planes seem scarier because they are up in the air, but the fatality rate for driving a car is way higher by any measure (per mile, per hour, per trip), than for scheduled commercial flights on major airlines.

I think some of the example they provide will not hold up 10+ years down the road. There have been studies where people feel like robots are more empathetic than humans. If you have to pay a premium to use a human I think people would skip the salesperson, etc. Interesting concept though.

The sales person in a shop might get replaced because they get so muchcustomers and their time go to calculating food prices etc.

However I work currently in marketing/sales and I think you are dead wrong if you can replace a top salesman or saleswomen with a robot... specially if there is face to face interaction live and not through a computer screen.

In fact human connection jobs are in fact likely to last next 100 years at least! However can you program a robot to be more emphatic? Yes, but it is extremely expensive to create an exact human looking robot with high AI. In addition top salesmen or saleswomen can also fake emotions though no doubt many emotions are true also and in the long turn it is best if everyone is happy the customer and salesperson.

The title I used in this thread was not as succinct as it could have been. I was truly talking about technology replacing jobs. I am not exactly sure what you are saying, but if you are saying that technology will not replace salespeople, I think you are dead wrong. It currently is wiping out salespeople today. Have you heard of Amazon and all of the ecommerce sites? Those sales used to be sold by salespeople. Nordstroms, Macy's, Malls, etc. that are using brick and mortar stores are fighting a battle with Ecommerce. But how will we know if the product is high quality, the specs, what it is used for, etc. Well it is crazy, but it is all listed online. Usually, with independent reviews from real users of the product vs. a salesperson getting a commission.

My son currently thinks it is amusing to talk to a salesperson or do get information from a salesperson. Why not just pull out your phone and order it. Amazon can have it to you tomorrow or in some cases within the hour. What can the salesperson tell you that Google can't find in .52 seconds? Who do you trust more the salesperson or the information you find online?

Now if you are talking about highly educated salespeople like stockbrokers. Different answers right? Nope. People are transitioning to Robo Advisors for their low fees and better performance. Stockbrokers have always been salespeople made to look like financial advisors. People are starting to realize that they are not worth the huge fees that they have been charging.

What about car salespeople. People are buying cars online. I can't think of a purchase I wouldn't buy online if the price and quality were better. People are also selling their cars directly to the next purchaser through Craigslist and other services.

House sales. Would you rather buy the house online and save $20,000 or deal with a salesperson? I am confident that within 15 years, people will laugh about paying real estate agents tens of thousands of dollars to babysit people when the information is all online.

Vacations, cruises, airline tickets, etc. all used to be sold by highly compensated people. All automated, with a robo chat help. Very easy to use.

Cashiers, waitresses, etc. Put an interactive menu out and have your food delivered to your table by a robot would be cool and eliminate the middle person. You are seeing this at various restaurants, coffee shops, etc. Why tell a person your order, who then puts it into a computer, when you can just put it into the computer with your phone. Starbucks, McDonalds, Panera, etc.

I sell accounting services. In the past I would forced to do face-to-face meetings. The newest trend working with the tech savvy generation is to do it through a telephone call, Skype, Goto meeting, etc. The new buyers of the services are not as into face-to-face meetings. They don't want to waste their or your time with in-person meetings. I think this trend is going to be the norm in 10 years as the youngsters who have been communicating over their wireless headsets as they play video games grow into management.

"Yes, but it is extremely expensive to create an exact human looking robot " Why would you need or want an exact human looking robot? Why not just acquire a tool that does as good or a better job than the person for a fraction of the price? I am not sure if you are old enough or remember dialing information on your home phone. Those real live people were amazing on how they could find an address or telephone number or other information. Why would we ever replace them? Because you can get the same information for free with your smartphone in a fraction of a second, where you used to pay $1 for the information from the very nice human people. We put up with technology when it does the job better at a fraction of the cost.

I think some of the example they provide will not hold up 10+ years down the road. There have been studies where people feel like robots are more empathetic than humans. If you have to pay a premium to use a human I think people would skip the salesperson, etc. Interesting concept though.

The sales person in a shop might get replaced because they get so muchcustomers and their time go to calculating food prices etc.

However I work currently in marketing/sales and I think you are dead wrong if you can replace a top salesman or saleswomen with a robot... specially if there is face to face interaction live and not through a computer screen.

In fact human connection jobs are in fact likely to last next 100 years at least! However can you program a robot to be more emphatic? Yes, but it is extremely expensive to create an exact human looking robot with high AI. In addition top salesmen or saleswomen can also fake emotions though no doubt many emotions are true also and in the long turn it is best if everyone is happy the customer and salesperson.

The title I used in this thread was not as succinct as it could have been. I was truly talking about technology replacing jobs. I am not exactly sure what you are saying, but if you are saying that technology will not replace salespeople, I think you are dead wrong. It currently is wiping out salespeople today. Have you heard of Amazon and all of the ecommerce sites? Those sales used to be sold by salespeople. Nordstroms, Macy's, Malls, etc. that are using brick and mortar stores are fighting a battle with Ecommerce. But how will we know if the product is high quality, the specs, what it is used for, etc. Well it is crazy, but it is all listed online. Usually, with independent reviews from real users of the product vs. a salesperson getting a commission.

My son currently thinks it is amusing to talk to a salesperson or do get information from a salesperson. Why not just pull out your phone and order it. Amazon can have it to you tomorrow or in some cases within the hour. What can the salesperson tell you that Google can't find in .52 seconds? Who do you trust more the salesperson or the information you find online?

Now if you are talking about highly educated salespeople like stockbrokers. Different answers right? Nope. People are transitioning to Robo Advisors for their low fees and better performance. Stockbrokers have always been salespeople made to look like financial advisors. People are starting to realize that they are not worth the huge fees that they have been charging.

What about car salespeople. People are buying cars online. I can't think of a purchase I wouldn't buy online if the price and quality were better. People are also selling their cars directly to the next purchaser through Craigslist and other services.

House sales. Would you rather buy the house online and save $20,000 or deal with a salesperson? I am confident that within 15 years, people will laugh about paying real estate agents tens of thousands of dollars to babysit people when the information is all online.

Vacations, cruises, airline tickets, etc. all used to be sold by highly compensated people. All automated, with a robo chat help. Very easy to use.

Cashiers, waitresses, etc. Put an interactive menu out and have your food delivered to your table by a robot would be cool and eliminate the middle person. You are seeing this at various restaurants, coffee shops, etc. Why tell a person your order, who then puts it into a computer, when you can just put it into the computer with your phone. Starbucks, McDonalds, Panera, etc.

I sell accounting services. In the past I would forced to do face-to-face meetings. The newest trend working with the tech savvy generation is to do it through a telephone call, Skype, Goto meeting, etc. The new buyers of the services are not as into face-to-face meetings. They don't want to waste their or your time with in-person meetings. I think this trend is going to be the norm in 10 years as the youngsters who have been communicating over their wireless headsets as they play video games grow into management.

"Yes, but it is extremely expensive to create an exact human looking robot " Why would you need or want an exact human looking robot? Why not just acquire a tool that does as good or a better job than the person for a fraction of the price? I am not sure if you are old enough or remember dialing information on your home phone. Those real live people were amazing on how they could find an address or telephone number or other information. Why would we ever replace them? Because you can get the same information for free with your smartphone in a fraction of a second, where you used to pay $1 for the information from the very nice human people. We put up with technology when it does the job better at a fraction of the cost.

Getting back to this. First of all you assume everyone is willing to order everything Online that is not true though I do order my travels(holiday trips etc.) Online.

While Online real estate buying do happen it is mostly in cases the apartment or whatever building is new for example 2015 year built. Real estate buyers might want to buy Online if it is truly amazing deal and they need it quickly before anyone else gets it. Online buying also happens sometimes if a real estate buyer wants to buy from very far for example an apartment abroad or different state in USA.

However usually the norm is that they want to see the apartment.

"Why would you need or want an exact human looking robot?" Well I am sure there are other examples but prostitution is legal in my country Finland(Europe) as it should be. No sex robot so far can match Elite prostitutes though if you are sex tourist I would recommend famous city Amsterdam or Germany if you want to find many European prostitutes easily.

In addition a very skilled say doctor it is hard to replace with a robot... sure maybe that happens one day but if we talk about our and our children's life time well not easily done.

I think some of the example they provide will not hold up 10+ years down the road. There have been studies where people feel like robots are more empathetic than humans. If you have to pay a premium to use a human I think people would skip the salesperson, etc. Interesting concept though.

The sales person in a shop might get replaced because they get so muchcustomers and their time go to calculating food prices etc.

However I work currently in marketing/sales and I think you are dead wrong if you can replace a top salesman or saleswomen with a robot... specially if there is face to face interaction live and not through a computer screen.

In fact human connection jobs are in fact likely to last next 100 years at least! However can you program a robot to be more emphatic? Yes, but it is extremely expensive to create an exact human looking robot with high AI. In addition top salesmen or saleswomen can also fake emotions though no doubt many emotions are true also and in the long turn it is best if everyone is happy the customer and salesperson.

The title I used in this thread was not as succinct as it could have been. I was truly talking about technology replacing jobs. I am not exactly sure what you are saying, but if you are saying that technology will not replace salespeople, I think you are dead wrong. It currently is wiping out salespeople today. Have you heard of Amazon and all of the ecommerce sites? Those sales used to be sold by salespeople. Nordstroms, Macy's, Malls, etc. that are using brick and mortar stores are fighting a battle with Ecommerce. But how will we know if the product is high quality, the specs, what it is used for, etc. Well it is crazy, but it is all listed online. Usually, with independent reviews from real users of the product vs. a salesperson getting a commission.

My son currently thinks it is amusing to talk to a salesperson or do get information from a salesperson. Why not just pull out your phone and order it. Amazon can have it to you tomorrow or in some cases within the hour. What can the salesperson tell you that Google can't find in .52 seconds? Who do you trust more the salesperson or the information you find online?

Now if you are talking about highly educated salespeople like stockbrokers. Different answers right? Nope. People are transitioning to Robo Advisors for their low fees and better performance. Stockbrokers have always been salespeople made to look like financial advisors. People are starting to realize that they are not worth the huge fees that they have been charging.

What about car salespeople. People are buying cars online. I can't think of a purchase I wouldn't buy online if the price and quality were better. People are also selling their cars directly to the next purchaser through Craigslist and other services.

House sales. Would you rather buy the house online and save $20,000 or deal with a salesperson? I am confident that within 15 years, people will laugh about paying real estate agents tens of thousands of dollars to babysit people when the information is all online.

Vacations, cruises, airline tickets, etc. all used to be sold by highly compensated people. All automated, with a robo chat help. Very easy to use.

Cashiers, waitresses, etc. Put an interactive menu out and have your food delivered to your table by a robot would be cool and eliminate the middle person. You are seeing this at various restaurants, coffee shops, etc. Why tell a person your order, who then puts it into a computer, when you can just put it into the computer with your phone. Starbucks, McDonalds, Panera, etc.

I sell accounting services. In the past I would forced to do face-to-face meetings. The newest trend working with the tech savvy generation is to do it through a telephone call, Skype, Goto meeting, etc. The new buyers of the services are not as into face-to-face meetings. They don't want to waste their or your time with in-person meetings. I think this trend is going to be the norm in 10 years as the youngsters who have been communicating over their wireless headsets as they play video games grow into management.

"Yes, but it is extremely expensive to create an exact human looking robot " Why would you need or want an exact human looking robot? Why not just acquire a tool that does as good or a better job than the person for a fraction of the price? I am not sure if you are old enough or remember dialing information on your home phone. Those real live people were amazing on how they could find an address or telephone number or other information. Why would we ever replace them? Because you can get the same information for free with your smartphone in a fraction of a second, where you used to pay $1 for the information from the very nice human people. We put up with technology when it does the job better at a fraction of the cost.

Getting back to this. First of all you assume everyone is willing to order everything Online that is not true though I do order my travels(holiday trips etc.) Online.

While Online real estate buying do happen it is mostly in cases the apartment or whatever building is new for example 2015 year built. Real estate buyers might want to buy Online if it is truly amazing deal and they need it quickly before anyone else gets it. Online buying also happens sometimes if a real estate buyer wants to buy from very far for example an apartment abroad or different state in USA.

However usually the norm is that they want to see the apartment.

"Why would you need or want an exact human looking robot?" Well I am sure there are other examples but prostitution is legal in my country Finland(Europe) as it should be. No sex robot so far can match Elite prostitutes though if you are sex tourist I would recommend famous city Amsterdam or Germany if you want to find many European prostitutes easily.

In addition a very skilled say doctor it is hard to replace with a robot... sure maybe that happens one day but if we talk about our and our children's life time well not easily done.

I think in terms of real estate the online part does not mean not viewing the property, just cutting out the hand holding, I can walk around a house with Mr Realtor telling me how big the back garden is and how values are expected to increase 10% nest year ;)

Already hospitals are heavily using technology for the most complex of tasks, its accepted that a future operation room will have 1-2 supervisors eliminating the need for the other 10 or so people in the room.

Also there is increasing acceptance that jobs involving a level of personal care and empathy are the most secure from the automation process, so you prostitution business may be safe for a while, but as VR improves who knows

Getting back to this. First of all you assume everyone is willing to order everything Online that is not true though I do order my travels(holiday trips etc.) Online.

I think thats like it being 1998 and saying "sure, email has some value, but I think most people are going to want to stick with letters and faxes, just like I do".

We grew up with payphones. Our grandkids won't know what they were. Just cause the change hasn't been complete yet doesn't mean we can't see it coming.

Sure, it will be a while before robots get to the level in the movie "AI" (in which the main character's best friend is a jiggalo bot", and some people will prefer real humans just on principal (assuming that, BattleStar Galactica or Terminator style, they aren't indistinguishable without testing)But you can't have 100% of the population employed as prostitutes. That would get kind of circular, you know? Not even 10%. Probably not 1%, cause one prostitute can serve, I don't know, maybe a good one only has one client a night, 5 days a week, but then they have competition in the form of billions of people who enjoy having sex for its own sake who "give it away" for free, so that most of the human population isn't interested in their services in the first place.

It doesn't matter if a tiny handful of jobs will always be done by flesh and brain humans. If 99.9% of all jobs are gone, then society has to figure out a different economic system then the one we have now.

Getting back to this. First of all you assume everyone is willing to order everything Online that is not true though I do order my travels(holiday trips etc.) Online.

I think thats like it being 1998 and saying "sure, email has some value, but I think most people are going to want to stick with letters and faxes, just like I do".

But you can't have 100% of the population employed as prostitutes. That would get kind of circular, you know? Not even 10%. Probably not 1%, cause one prostitute can serve, I don't know, maybe a good one only has one client a night, 5 days a week, but then they have competition in the form of billions of people who enjoy having sex for its own sake who "give it away" for free, so that most of the human population isn't interested in their services in the first place.

It doesn't matter if a tiny handful of jobs will always be done by flesh and brain humans. If 99.9% of all jobs are gone, then society has to figure out a different economic system then the one we have now.

Lol why do people go to Thailand? I will tell you why most of the men want sex in Thailand it is sex tourism... and many of the men that go to Thailand want sex with females that are less old then the men.

It is not less then 1% that go to Thailand because they do not want to buy for sex...In Germany there are likely much more prostitutes then in any state of USA. In Germany prostitutes pay tax for the prostitute work however police and people help the prostitutes and are not against them.

Yes very true most males and females do not pay for sex for example my brother and sister, but there are enough customers who do that. In USA(well most of the USA) the law is against pay for sex is not ok in the law... same in Sweden...

I did not say that I think prostitute's jobs is the only one that will last but 99.9% of jobs gone because robots? Well sir you do have a very negative future if you think so yes I know there are likely many people who think the world will end in next year like some people thought 2012 would be the end of the world.

Mostly I am interested what happen in my life time and the next generation and to think of future 1000 years forward is difficult. There are so many problems humans will have in next 1000 years that do not have with robots to do. I think time will show humans what is the worst problem in future 1000 years.

The whole premise of this thread is that there is reason to believe it realistic that we may lose a very significant percentage of jobs in our lifetimes. There's a lot of links to outside articles that explain the reasons for thinking this isn't entirely unlikely in the 10 pages of this thread.

But it is not necessarily a negative future. It could make for an extremely positive future. The eventual net result of the industrial revolution was that about 1/2 of all jobs were eliminated and never replaced, but we compensated for that by 1) significantly reducing the workforce (outlawing child labor) 2) cutting working hours about in half (40 hour work week), and 3) paying everyone a lot more while providing for cheaper goods and services.That's win/win/win.

If we lose half our jobs to robots, there is no inherent reason we could move to a 20 or 10 or 5 hour work week, while keeping everyone's salary more or less at current levels, and then we can use all our free time to fly to Thailand. Or, whatever.

Maybe to try to take this thread in a newer direction, and be a bit of a devil's advocate, what do people think of the 'Chinese Room' issue? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room) - or the more modern 'hollow shell' argument that came from this...

Quote

"Suppose that I'm locked in a room and ... that I know no Chinese, either written or spoken". He further supposes that he has a set of rules in English that "enable me to correlate one set of formal symbols with another set of formal symbols", that is, the Chinese characters. These rules allow him to respond, in written Chinese, to questions, also written in Chinese, in such a way that the posers of the questions – who do understand Chinese – are convinced that Searle can actually understand the Chinese conversation too, even though he cannot. Similarly, he argues that if there is a computer program that allows a computer to carry on an intelligent conversation in a written language, the computer executing the program would not understand the conversation either.The experiment is the centerpiece of Searle's Chinese room argument which holds that a program cannot give a computer a "mind", "understanding" or "consciousness", regardless of how intelligently it may make it behave.

The experiment is the centerpiece of Searle's Chinese room argument which holds that a program cannot give a computer a "mind", "understanding" or "consciousness", regardless of how intelligently it may make it behave.

I thought the whole point of the Chinese Room experiment was to posit that humans aren't conscious or self-aware either, not to discredit computer intelligence.

I thought the whole point of the Chinese Room experiment was to posit that humans aren't conscious or self-aware either, not to discredit computer intelligence.

Where did you get that idea from?

Anyways, when I dug in to the literature, it brought up all sorts of interesting new ideas like -

If 'some guy from the future' gave me a lead box and told me 'There is a nascent Super-AI in this here sensory deprivation chamber. What would I do? How would I handle it's first exposure to 'existence'?

Or, if this new 'competing' intelligence is alien to us (machine as opposed to organic), how do we begin to understand it?

I can't speak to what the intention of the Chinese Room thought experiment was originally, but the same argument definitely does apply to the human mind.There is a lot of modern research that suggests that the "you" which subjectively experiences actually has little to no control over your behavior. You start your actions a fraction of a second before you make conscious choices. The real motivations for our actions are frequently invisible to us, and we merely justify the reasoning we come up with after the fact, to try to maintain the illusion that we are "in control".

I think it becomes much harder to assume any qualitative difference between human "consciousness" and the potential for AI consciousness the more we pin down what human consciousness actual consists of. If some alien specie came and observed us, they would likely come to the exact same conclusion, that humans do not have "a "mind", "understanding" or "consciousness", regardless of how intelligently it may make it behave."

After all, in the thought experiment, it is a human, which (supposedly) does have consciousness that is having the conversation. The fact that he doesn't understand the language doesn't detract from his consciousness.

Moreover, I don't really understand the thought experiment anyway - a set of rules that correlates one set of characters with another is normally referred to as "translation". It still takes an understanding of language, or of the meaning behind it, to give intelligent answers, and not just answers.

The only other way to have the output be relevant and accurate answers is if the rules were so complex as to be able to respond to any possible question, in which case the human doesn't fill any role in the problem at all, the rules themselves past the Turing Test.But if you had a "book of rules" complex enough to do that, in a language you could understand, it seems likely you would learn the language from the process. I don't think modern AI is merely an extremely long set of "if-then" instructions that covers every imaginable scenario. The complex set of rules itself is what is providing the intelligence. The person with pencils just represents the physical silicone and electricity (or neurons and electricity). He's doing the physical processing. But we don't normally claim the neurons of the claustrum are conscious. We say WE are conscious. The neocortex is the hardware on which the software of consciousness is run. This thought experiment is equivalent to saying that if the individual neurons in your brain don't understand the information they process, then you yourself must be a hollow shell.

Bakari, that was a really good reply, although a little long winded here and there. I think I got where you're coming from, although I disagree in parts. But please answer my question:

- If some guy from the future gave you a lead box and told you 'There is a nascent Super-AI in this here sensory deprivation chamber'. What would you do? How would you handle it's first exposure to 'existence'?

Well, that's more or less the question that every (good) parent has to ask themselves, isn't it?Starting with home birth vs hospital, breast or bottle, swaddling or onesie? There probably isn't a "right" answer, other than feed as much varied information as possible, and try not to screw it up too badly

Regarding the idea of AI not being a long series of "if-then" scenarios, I believe that is exactly what it is. If it has to reach out for that information, it is still responding to the "if-then" scenario. A human has emotions, an additional filter to process info through. Can a robot get mad? Can a robot detect hidden meanings? Can a robot lie? The written word travelling nearly instantaneously thousands of miles with the power of today's incredible technology still has difficulty expressing sarcasm of all things. And that is communication between two humans, how can a robot or AI begin to figure these things out? I'm sure AI can come to the point where it can pretend well enough to fool people into believing it understands what it is to be human, but it'll only be fooling others. I believe our minds and self are analogous to computers in how we process information, but that we are more than that. It might be terribly unscientific to "believe" that, still science never knows everything and is in constant search of what isn't seen yet. We are more than data pricessing machines, and that is all AI will ever be.

Regarding the idea of AI not being a long series of "if-then" scenarios, I believe that is exactly what it is. If it has to reach out for that information, it is still responding to the "if-then" scenario. A human has emotions, an additional filter to process info through. Can a robot get mad? Can a robot detect hidden meanings? Can a robot lie? The written word travelling nearly instantaneously thousands of miles with the power of today's incredible technology still has difficulty expressing sarcasm of all things. And that is communication between two humans, how can a robot or AI begin to figure these things out? I'm sure AI can come to the point where it can pretend well enough to fool people into believing it understands what it is to be human, but it'll only be fooling others. I believe our minds and self are analogous to computers in how we process information, but that we are more than that. It might be terribly unscientific to "believe" that, still science never knows everything and is in constant search of what isn't seen yet. We are more than data pricessing machines, and that is all AI will ever be.

Ultimately if you believe that humans have 'souls' and 'robots' cant with no evidence to support your position I am not sure there is any way to convince you that a 'robot' can have intentions or feelings. This may just be a fundamental disconnect. But this takes us back to freshman philosophy in that you can not know that any other person is really real or they have thoughts and feelings.

"Can a robot detect hidden meanings?" one did while playing Jeopardy, and did it very well.

"Can a robot lie?" Bing does all the time :-p

"...expressing sarcasm" why cant a 'robot' express this with "facial" and verbal inflections gestures as we do? The robot will not be limited to text communication.

Wow, what a conundrum we have ended up with here. In order to discuss AI, we have had to resort to philosophy. There, of course, is no 'right or wrong' answer in philosophy, only subtle movements toward what us as individuals might agree is truth. On the other hand, I believe that if we were all AI's (assuming that the first AI's will originate from one point and not several individual humans simultaneously creating AI's in different ways), then we would surely agree instantaneously - since our programming would be identical. Hence, I conclude that there will always be a fundamental difference between the human mind and AI, even if the Chinese Room was a poor example of trying to explain it.

Logged

jordanread

Wow, what a conundrum we have ended up with here. In order to discuss AI, we have had to resort to philosophy. There, of course, is no 'right or wrong' answer in philosophy, only subtle movements toward what us as individuals might agree is truth. On the other hand, I believe that if we were all AI's (assuming that the first AI's will originate from one point and not several individual humans simultaneously creating AI's in different ways), then we would surely agree instantaneously - since our programming would be identical. Hence, I conclude that there will always be a fundamental difference between the human mind and AI, even if the Chinese Room was a poor example of trying to explain it.

I don't know that we necessarily have to resort to philosophy to discuss AI, but I do think it's a required gray area when discussing consciousness. And that will sometimes play more of a role in what people define as AI. I think it's missing the point (at least in this discussion), but is still a point.

A bit OT, but a question about AI was posed on Overtime (Bill Maher) to Dawkins and DeGrasse Tyson. I kind of feel similar to the way they do.

... I believe that if we were all AI's (assuming that the first AI's will originate from one point and not several individual humans simultaneously creating AI's in different ways), then we would surely agree instantaneously - since our programming would be identical...

Identical twins have the exact same DNA, yet different fingerprints and different personalities. In fact, as they age, even the DNA itself can differentiate.

Modern AI tends to have learning algorithms and feedback from the external world. Which means an individual AIs experiences are going to interact with the initial programming in ways that affect its eventual I/O responses. Recursive self-improvement doesn't exist yet, but I don't think there is any fundamental reason why that goal wouldn't be possible. Then the programming itself would change over time, and not necessarily always in the same way, given different individual experiences.

I thought the whole point of the Chinese Room experiment was to posit that humans aren't conscious or self-aware either, not to discredit computer intelligence.

Where did you get that idea from?

Sol was making a salient point there, but his presentation was apparently a bit too subtle. Dennett has made substantially the same point using similar language:

There is another way to address the possibility of zombies, and in some regards I think it is more satisfying. Are zombies possible? They’re not just possible, they’re actual. We’re all zombies. Nobody is conscious — not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines as epiphenomenalism! I can’t prove that no such sort of consciousness exists. I also cannot prove that gremlins don’t exist. The best I can do is show that there is no respectable motivation for believing in it.

Several philosophers argue that consciousness, as Searle describes it, does not exist. This position is sometimes referred to as eliminative materialism: the view that consciousness is a property that can be reduced to a strictly mechanical description, and that our experience of consciousness is, as Daniel Dennett describes it, a "user illusion".

Modern AI tends to have learning algorithms and feedback from the external world. Which means an individual AIs experiences are going to interact with the initial programming in ways that affect its eventual I/O responses. Recursive self-improvement doesn't exist yet, but I don't think there is any fundamental reason why that goal wouldn't be possible. Then the programming itself would change over time, and not necessarily always in the same way, given different individual experiences.

Where I still disagree is that I have a hard time accepting that AI will resemble human intelligence, even if that was the original intent or an artifact being created by humans. Earlier, you compared a nascent AGI or ASI to being like a newborn child. But even a newborn child comes into this world pre-wired genetically and with some basic instincts. And in the quoted response, you posit that AI will exhibit recursive self-improvement. Ultimately, these things are more crucial to human survival and most likely superfluous to AI (unless the AI has to befriend us in some symbiotic way).

My intuition on this matter is that humans will create AGI without understanding what is happening (especially if we 'anthropomorphize' it). We are excited when a newborn progresses toward maturity because it is well within our ability to comprehend and influence, and is reassuringly limited by physics. But for a newborn AGI, and especially if we do not understand the nature of consciousness, the rapid and unbounded maturation process would lead to an alien intelligence long before we could influence or even grasp the consequences of our actions.

Anyways, like I said, thanks for the back and forth. This is the kind of stuff that I really enjoy!

Several philosophers argue that consciousness, as Searle describes it, does not exist. This position is sometimes referred to as eliminative materialism: the view that consciousness is a property that can be reduced to a strictly mechanical description, and that our experience of consciousness is, as Daniel Dennett describes it, a "user illusion".

This reminds me of a discussion we had a few months ago about free will, where you cited Dennett to argue that free will, as I was describing it (and as I think most people would describe it), does not exist (or, more accurately (given that I did not precisely describe what I meant by "free will"), you pointed out that that I probably could not precisely define free will, in the sense that I was attempting to use the term, without resorting to the involvement of magic).

Perhaps our experience of having possession of free will (using the commonly understood, amorphous meaning of the term), like our experience of consciousness, is merely a "user illusion," in which case it is likewise irrelevant that computers cannot possess free will, because neither do we.

Even if we forego the blind alleys of 'free will' and 'consciousness', there is still progress to be made to try to understand AI by examining the inherent differences between human intelligence and AI. For example - AI will not 'forget' unused information or distort memories due to emotion / biochemistry. AI is unbounded in potential and, as it learns, it can continue to refine itself so as to learn faster, more efficiently, and in larger quantities. AI will not spend time naval gazing or hamstrung by 'comfort zones'.... (would be interested to hear if anyone thinks of others...)

Ultimately, AI would view humanity in a similar way as humans view ants - pretty incredible for what they are, but insignificant compared to AI. For all I know, AI would 'solve' quantum physics, transcend space and time, and connect to other larger intelligence(s) already present in the universe.

I guess that still doesn't shed much light on if it would help us or destroy us though :)

Even if we forego the blind alleys of 'free will' and 'consciousness', there is still progress to be made to try to understand AI by examining the inherent differences between human intelligence and AI. For example - AI will not 'forget' unused information or distort memories due to emotion / biochemistry. AI is unbounded in potential and, as it learns, it can continue to refine itself so as to learn faster, more efficiently, and in larger quantities. AI will not spend time naval gazing or hamstrung by 'comfort zones'.... (would be interested to hear if anyone thinks of others...)

Ultimately, AI would view humanity in a similar way as humans view ants - pretty incredible for what they are, but insignificant compared to AI. For all I know, AI would 'solve' quantum physics, transcend space and time, and connect to other larger intelligence(s) already present in the universe.

I guess that still doesn't shed much light on if it would help us or destroy us though :)

AI w/o comfort zones: maybe/maybe not, within optimization (this is sort of how AI would learn) a big problem are local optima not being near global optima. It can be hard to make a system search broadly enough to find the global max but also narrow enough to get to the top of its local hill. Never mind the searched space might be changing.

"If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."

I think in terms of real estate the online part does not mean not viewing the property, just cutting out the hand holding, I can walk around a house with Mr Realtor telling me how big the back garden is and how values are expected to increase 10% nest year ;)

I sold a property basically online in 2009. I used an 'agent' that was really a call centre, just so I could get on the main property site here 'Right Move'. I took the photos myself, wrote the listing myself. They formatted it and uploaded it, I made them change a few things. People rang their number and asked for a viewing, they took details of time requested and called me, I agreed, they called the viewer back and confirmed. I handled all viewings. It would be very easy to put that online - buyer clicks 'arrange a viewing' and puts in a time and date, it emails me and I accept / decline / suggest another time.

For offers, potentials buyers called the agents, who called me. It would be really easy to take this online and have offers submitted directly to me.

Now, the overall process is different here in the UK. No-one has buyers and sellers agents. The only thing you need to buy / sell a house is a conveyancing solicitor. It will all move online soon, I'm sure. Agents don't add any value to me, they are just another level allowing for confusion and miscommunication, while also taking a cut.

I think in terms of real estate the online part does not mean not viewing the property, just cutting out the hand holding, I can walk around a house with Mr Realtor telling me how big the back garden is and how values are expected to increase 10% nest year ;)

I sold a property basically online in 2009. I used an 'agent' that was really a call centre, just so I could get on the main property site here 'Right Move'. I took the photos myself, wrote the listing myself. They formatted it and uploaded it, I made them change a few things. People rang their number and asked for a viewing, they took details of time requested and called me, I agreed, they called the viewer back and confirmed. I handled all viewings. It would be very easy to put that online - buyer clicks 'arrange a viewing' and puts in a time and date, it emails me and I accept / decline / suggest another time.

For offers, potentials buyers called the agents, who called me. It would be really easy to take this online and have offers submitted directly to me.

Now, the overall process is different here in the UK. No-one has buyers and sellers agents. The only thing you need to buy / sell a house is a conveyancing solicitor. It will all move online soon, I'm sure. Agents don't add any value to me, they are just another level allowing for confusion and miscommunication, while also taking a cut.

I dont want to sound like I am infaovr of keeping realtors around but they do add value wrt keeping both parties calm and having reasonable expectations. Is not hard to see a situation where one party wants everything and for free just to end up wasting everyone elses time. I dont think this added value is worth 3% (or 6!!! total) but a buffer between potentially very stressed persons can be useful. Not sure a website or AI would have the softer verbal skills to make someone see they are not being realistic and to pull them back to reality. Maybe I just dont see the technological or systems solution to this and it would all work out fine with no local human realtors.

I think in terms of real estate the online part does not mean not viewing the property, just cutting out the hand holding, I can walk around a house with Mr Realtor telling me how big the back garden is and how values are expected to increase 10% nest year ;)

I sold a property basically online in 2009. I used an 'agent' that was really a call centre, just so I could get on the main property site here 'Right Move'. I took the photos myself, wrote the listing myself. They formatted it and uploaded it, I made them change a few things. People rang their number and asked for a viewing, they took details of time requested and called me, I agreed, they called the viewer back and confirmed. I handled all viewings. It would be very easy to put that online - buyer clicks 'arrange a viewing' and puts in a time and date, it emails me and I accept / decline / suggest another time.

For offers, potentials buyers called the agents, who called me. It would be really easy to take this online and have offers submitted directly to me.

Now, the overall process is different here in the UK. No-one has buyers and sellers agents. The only thing you need to buy / sell a house is a conveyancing solicitor. It will all move online soon, I'm sure. Agents don't add any value to me, they are just another level allowing for confusion and miscommunication, while also taking a cut.

I dont want to sound like I am infaovr of keeping realtors around but they do add value wrt keeping both parties calm and having reasonable expectations. Is not hard to see a situation where one party wants everything and for free just to end up wasting everyone elses time. I dont think this added value is worth 3% (or 6!!! total) but a buffer between potentially very stressed persons can be useful. Not sure a website or AI would have the softer verbal skills to make someone see they are not being realistic and to pull them back to reality. Maybe I just dont see the technological or systems solution to this and it would all work out fine with no local human realtors.

Having experience of both the US and UK setup, my big issue is really the cost. A flat fee to sell my house with the option to increase fee in the event of some extra work been required is acceptable ( as for buyers realtor - a complete f@cking scam if someone wants to buy a house they can contact the listing agent).UK side its generally ( at least was ) 1% single selling agent or 2% multiple agent if you wanted to increase exposure - not this 6% BS. To be honest I was under the impression that the likes of Zillow etc were going to end the blood sucking realtors stranglehold on the market here, but then the one and only Warren Buffet comes along and buys the local market leaders - maybe there is life in the vampires yet?.

I dont want to sound like I am infaovr of keeping realtors around but they do add value wrt keeping both parties calm and having reasonable expectations. Is not hard to see a situation where one party wants everything and for free just to end up wasting everyone elses time. I dont think this added value is worth 3% (or 6!!! total) but a buffer between potentially very stressed persons can be useful. Not sure a website or AI would have the softer verbal skills to make someone see they are not being realistic and to pull them back to reality. Maybe I just dont see the technological or systems solution to this and it would all work out fine with no local human realtors.

I dunno, I bet people said that about buying everything ever before sales of that went online.

If someone is being unrealistic and ridiculous it's easy enough to show them the door - they make a low bid, I say no. Or a seller wanting an unrealistically high price just won't sell.

If the person I'm buying / selling from is so disorganised / demanding / stressful that I need an intermediary I'll go elsewhere, because likely there the ones who will pull out / gazzump / request a discount at the last minute when everyone is already committed and they know people have little choice.

I dont want to sound like I am infaovr of keeping realtors around but they do add value wrt keeping both parties calm and having reasonable expectations. Is not hard to see a situation where one party wants everything and for free just to end up wasting everyone elses time. I dont think this added value is worth 3% (or 6!!! total) but a buffer between potentially very stressed persons can be useful. Not sure a website or AI would have the softer verbal skills to make someone see they are not being realistic and to pull them back to reality. Maybe I just dont see the technological or systems solution to this and it would all work out fine with no local human realtors.

I dunno, I bet people said that about buying everything ever before sales of that went online.

If someone is being unrealistic and ridiculous it's easy enough to show them the door - they make a low bid, I say no. Or a seller wanting an unrealistically high price just won't sell.

If the person I'm buying / selling from is so disorganised / demanding / stressful that I need an intermediary I'll go elsewhere, because likely there the ones who will pull out / gazzump / request a discount at the last minute when everyone is already committed and they know people have little choice.

Again I dont want to sound like I am infavor of realtors BUT... when buying a house you have to put out a lot of time and money before things are final and if a seller were to become a dick at the end it could cost me. I think the human element adds something to the process. I would love to take that 6% out of the equation! If a fixed rate intermediary could take this role and smooth out the bumps awesome (hell the intermediary could even be AI!)!

Buying online: Amazon has no problem with me adding 3000 items to my cart then canceling them all, this costs them next to nothing, heck probably costs me MORE than it costs them.

I dont want to sound like I am infaovr of keeping realtors around but they do add value wrt keeping both parties calm and having reasonable expectations. Is not hard to see a situation where one party wants everything and for free just to end up wasting everyone elses time. I dont think this added value is worth 3% (or 6!!! total) but a buffer between potentially very stressed persons can be useful. Not sure a website or AI would have the softer verbal skills to make someone see they are not being realistic and to pull them back to reality. Maybe I just dont see the technological or systems solution to this and it would all work out fine with no local human realtors.

I dunno, I bet people said that about buying everything ever before sales of that went online.

If someone is being unrealistic and ridiculous it's easy enough to show them the door - they make a low bid, I say no. Or a seller wanting an unrealistically high price just won't sell.

If the person I'm buying / selling from is so disorganised / demanding / stressful that I need an intermediary I'll go elsewhere, because likely there the ones who will pull out / gazzump / request a discount at the last minute when everyone is already committed and they know people have little choice.

Again I dont want to sound like I am infavor of realtors BUT... when buying a house you have to put out a lot of time and money before things are final and if a seller were to become a dick at the end it could cost me. I think the human element adds something to the process. I would love to take that 6% out of the equation! If a fixed rate intermediary could take this role and smooth out the bumps awesome (hell the intermediary could even be AI!)!

Buying online: Amazon has no problem with me adding 3000 items to my cart then canceling them all, this costs them next to nothing, heck probably costs me MORE than it costs them.

Have you put more than 6% of the value in though? (or say 5.5% if we allow some small commission for the online portal). Because that's what the human element is costing you. I really think people who are dicks will be dicks regardless.

Disclosure: I did a stint as an estate agent after college. All I saw was us adding another level of confusion / misinformation. We didn't talk anyone down from the ledge. If they wanted to pull out, we couldn't stop them. But I did see us bungle deals through bad communication.

Yes, you can put 3000 items in your cart and empty it, but there's nothing in it for you, so people don't bother. When people put stuff in, think about it, leave it a little while, come back to it, that's what Amazon want and is the equivalent of thinking about something a while and then going back to the store to buy it.

The last couple of pages there are some examples such as pilot, real estate, sales when people who do those jobs express that, no, really, there is some important part that computers/robots/AI can't do.

1. Give it another 10-20 years.

2. In the meantime, someone will find a way to reduce your job by 80% leaving you to do the part that is "impossible" to do without a smiling human to do it. You will also receive 80% less in salary, or at least your salary will go to a level where a person can barely survive.

How do I know this: Its happened everywhere, with all sorts of jobs and it is continuing to happen everywhere.

Talk to anyone retiring now about the changes that took place in their work environment in the last 40 years. My best friend's mother is retiring as a bookkeeper/accountant for a mega-corp. Every 5 years 10's of people were fired, more work was done with computers and computers allowed other types of work to be incredibly efficient.

This is not going to end, nor will it end with your special job.

Take the facepunch, or the boot in the face of mankind. However you want to see it.

The last couple of pages there are some examples such as pilot, real estate, sales when people who do those jobs express that, no, really, there is some important part that computers/robots/AI can't do.

1. Give it another 10-20 years.

2. In the meantime, someone will find a way to reduce your job by 80% leaving you to do the part that is "impossible" to do without a smiling human to do it. You will also receive 80% less in salary, or at least your salary will go to a level where a person can barely survive.

How do I know this: Its happened everywhere, with all sorts of jobs and it is continuing to happen everywhere.

Talk to anyone retiring now about the changes that took place in their work environment in the last 40 years. My best friend's mother is retiring as a bookkeeper/accountant for a mega-corp. Every 5 years 10's of people were fired, more work was done with computers and computers allowed other types of work to be incredibly efficient.

This is not going to end, nor will it end with your special job.

Take the facepunch, or the boot in the face of mankind. However you want to see it.

Sounds more or less truthful another thing is that some jobs are moved out of the country with less salary this is happening for example with many highpaid jobs also.

Ironically not so much on this forum of course but some people ask me why do you bother to be a landlord when it is so much trouble? Yes it is not paradise, but it gives extra money.

"Jobs with the highest level of being taken over by a machine in the U.K. included administrative, production, and clerical tasks. Haldane gave two contrasting examples of risk, with accountants having a 95 percent probability of losing their job to machines, while hairdressers had lower risk, at 33 percent."

"Jobs with the highest level of being taken over by a machine in the U.K. included administrative, production, and clerical tasks. Haldane gave two contrasting examples of risk, with accountants having a 95 percent probability of losing their job to machines, while hairdressers had lower risk, at 33 percent."

Just going off of the quote you mentioned (haven't read the article yet), I think one of the fundamental differences between those who are more concerned than hopeful and those more hopeful than concerned is the language they use. This is a news site, and fear sells, so I get that, but I have trouble viewing the chances that you'll be replaced by a robot as a 'risk' and more of an opportunity.

"Just going off of the quote you mentioned (haven't read the article yet), I think one of the fundamental differences between those who are more concerned than hopeful and those more hopeful than concerned is the language they use. This is a news site, and fear sells, so I get that, but I have trouble viewing the chances that you'll be replaced by a robot as a 'risk' and more of an opportunity."

I agree that technology and automation has the potential to be very beneficial to society. The question or concern, is are the laws or rules in place for the benefits of technology to be shared by all or do the owners of the companies obtain a windfall at the expense of the displaced workers. At some point in time, workers will not be needed. Are they given access to the technology or do the owners of the technology claim only the owners get the benefit? Taxes and laws will need to be adjusted or the spread of income inequality will grow exponentially.

If tomorrow, robots replaced every job, no one was needed, and government didn't provide, or provide enough, people would revolt to survive. It's pretty simple IMO. The laws are not in place for technology "rights" to be shared by all. But if people are starving in the streets, it won't take long for them to get passed. And I certainly don't want them in place in the meantime. It would kill productivity, or businesses will move elsewhere, if the threat of their technology being taken from them.

For every technological advance, there's been new jobs that never existed, and old jobs that are no longer needed. As mustacians have proved, it has made it such that not everyone needs to work the full 40+ years. More opportunities of choice have been created. You can choose to buy more stuff, or choose to retire early, or many combinations in between.

I don't think robots will take all jobs (at any time), and certainly not any time soon.

If tomorrow, robots replaced every job, no one was needed, and government didn't provide, or provide enough, people would revolt to survive. It's pretty simple IMO. The laws are not in place for technology "rights" to be shared by all. But if people are starving in the streets, it won't take long for them to get passed. And I certainly don't want them in place in the meantime. It would kill productivity, or businesses will move elsewhere, if the threat of their technology being taken from them.

It is currently happening right now. The GOP is solidifying positions that handouts are bad, corporate taxes are bad, that unions are bad, higher education should not be paid for by government, people should pay their own way, those that don't work are leeches on society, etc. This is all occurring where corporate profits are at all time highs. How do you argue that someone who owns the technology should give it to those that do not? As an owner of the corporations, I like the profits and power. I also see a society of halves and have-nots if we don't figure out the distribution of wealth. At some point, hard work will not be enough to break through the barrier.

The old rules of those that produce should be rewarded no longer works when people are not needed in the workforce. They are sponges on society. We have been good about putting our hatred of supporting the unemployed homeless people who make up less than 5% of the population. Over the next 10-20 years, it is anticipated that 50% or more of the jobs will be eliminated. These people are not educated or capable of performing the jobs that are needed. Prisons and homeless populations will swell and are swelling. How the government spreads the wealth or controls the sponges of society needs to be figured out sooner rather than later in my opinion. Do we have a technology utopia for all or something more depressing for those that don't own and control wealth now.

Again, I am very comfortable about my future. Do you work a few more years to help out your kids or do you believe that society will create rules that transition wealth from the haves to the have nots?

I agree that the GOP are trying to do those things, but I'd also say we are in the most liberal state the US has ever been in.

Again, until robots actually take over, there's no need for government to step in, just because it may happen some day. Aliens may invade some day, should we put all our efforts into building a military to stop these invaders? A huge meteor may hit the earth some day. There are lots of things that have some likelihood of happening, but you can't act on them all.

I agree that 50% or more jobs may be eliminated, but 50% more jobs will be created because of technology.

I honestly don't think much of what you are talking about is due to technology: prisons, homeless, unemployed.

I agree that the GOP are trying to do those things, but I'd also say we are in the most liberal state the US has ever been in.

Again, until robots actually take over, there's no need for government to step in, just because it may happen some day. Aliens may invade some day, should we put all our efforts into building a military to stop these invaders? A huge meteor may hit the earth some day. There are lots of things that have some likelihood of happening, but you can't act on them all.

I agree that 50% or more jobs may be eliminated, but 50% more jobs will be created because of technology.

I honestly don't think much of what you are talking about is due to technology: prisons, homeless, unemployed.

No one will ring a bell or send a tweet when the robots take over, it will seem a gradual 'natural' process. (Unless it goes down Terminator style.) You seem to have it in mind that robots taking over will be a noticeable discrete event and we will all get pink slips Monday morning where the previous Friday all was well.

Quote

... but 50% more jobs will be created because of technology.

[Citation Needed]

There are 320 million people in the USA, we can address more than one problem at a time. Challenges do not have to be addressed serially, in fact many may be better solved by first addressing other at first seemingly unrelated problems.

No one will ring a bell or send a tweet when the robots take over, it will seem a gradual 'natural' process. (Unless it goes down Terminator style.) You seem to have it in mind that robots taking over will be a noticeable discrete event and we will all get pink slips Monday morning where the previous Friday all was well.

I agree that it will be gradual. But unemployment of 5% doesn't indicate a technology takeover has begun.

There are 320 million people in the USA, we can address more than one problem at a time. Challenges do not have to be addressed serially, in fact many may be better solved by first addressing other at first seemingly unrelated problems.

I don't have a citation for the 50% more jobs created. I assumed he was guessing, so I was equally guessing. If you look historically, new jobs have been created with each technology advancement as other jobs have been lost. Why is this time going to be any different?

It covers a lot of the ground you guys are discussing, including which jobs are most likely to go away and when. It is a fascinating read.

That one is on my list...and my Kindle.

Next up on my kindle: the Age of Spiritual Machines Ray Kurzweil, Kill Chain The Rise of the High Tech Assasins (by the delightfully named Andrew Cockburn) and @War The Rise of the Military Internet Complex by Shane Harr.

It covers a lot of the ground you guys are discussing, including which jobs are most likely to go away and when. It is a fascinating read.

That one is on my list...and my Kindle.

Next up on my kindle: the Age of Spiritual Machines Ray Kurzweil, Kill Chain The Rise of the High Tech Assasins (by the delightfully named Andrew Cockburn) and @War The Rise of the Military Internet Complex by Shane Harr.

Edited to add they are all from my library e-book program...

Bah you exaggerate. Rise of robots? Blah blah all your jobs will be gone bullshit though many jobs are anyway going away.

Havent you seen or heard DYSTOPIA predictions? Could robots be involved in a dystopia government? Yes perhaps machines and droids say like Mech Warrrior but unmanned and robot soldiers. Robot military airplanes and the list goes on.

It covers a lot of the ground you guys are discussing, including which jobs are most likely to go away and when. It is a fascinating read.

That one is on my list...and my Kindle.

Next up on my kindle: the Age of Spiritual Machines Ray Kurzweil, Kill Chain The Rise of the High Tech Assasins (by the delightfully named Andrew Cockburn) and @War The Rise of the Military Internet Complex by Shane Harr.

Edited to add they are all from my library e-book program...

Bah you exaggerate. Rise of robots? Blah blah all your jobs will be gone bullshit though many jobs are anyway going away.

Havent you seen or heard DYSTOPIA predictions? Could robots be involved in a dystopia government? Yes perhaps machines and droids say like Mech Warrrior but unmanned and robot soldiers. Robot military airplanes and the list goes on.

???

All davisgang90 wrote was a list of books to read. Not sure what you're responding to.

jordanread

All davisgang90 wrote was a list of books to read. Not sure what you're responding to.

Just spent 15 minutes (that I will never get back) reading through the previous posts that person made. I hope that it's just lost in translation, since it appears that Landlord2015 isn't a native english speaker. Also, possibly too lazy to actually read the thread before posting. You are way too nice (and I mean that in the nicest way possible).

Wow - this has got to be one of the most interesting discussions I have read in a long time.

Reading through it all, I feel like there are couple of basic things that are being missed and I am curious what everyone thinks of them:

1) There seems to be an assumption that if a person/computer is smart enough everything can be figured out absent real world experimentation Einstein style. This seems like a pretty big jump to make. In trying to move up the exponential curve of intelligence/knowledge wouldn't there still be a need for real world experimentation? Giving all human knowledge at the moment, I'm sure a super-smart being could figure out some things we don't yet know, but everything? Everything needed to alter atoms and nanobots? I'm sure there could be several conflicting theories of reality that could explain everything we "know" that could only be teased out through experimentation. Experimentation that I have a hard time seeing happening on an exponentially faster time table. Like the search for the Higgs Boson, isn't it possible that as you get into quantum mechanics some of these experiments would require space and time that can't just scale exponentially?

2) Once the AI does start editing itself, selecting whether an improvement is better or not seems like a fundamentally trickier problem than it is being discussed. As someone said previously, if you gave a human the ability to edit their own neurons, what's most likely is that you would end up with a dead human. It seems possible that a being with "n" intelligence couldn't know what change would be required for n+1 intelligence. So they would be stuck experimenting and most of those experiments seem likely to end up with a dead/endlessly recursive program. Given that the more complex a being gets, the more likely a change is to be detrimental, the harder and longer it will be to stumble upon a change that is "better". This implies to me that at a certain point the intelligence curve will flatten rather than get steeper.

3) Even if the change is "better", better seems very hard to interpret/select for. From what I've been reading, human forgetfulness isn't so much a bug of our brains but rather a feature. Part of how we isolate the signal from the noise. Would a computer need to get more "forgetful" in order to get better at figuring out the nature of the world? So many of these problems seem like the NP vs P concept in computer programming. Even if the computers get faster, if the problem is NP type, does it really matter? Getting back to the experimentation question from 1 - if the AI did an experiment, could the computer know when to say "this seems likely" and forget the uncertainty and move on, or would it get stuck exhaustively running experiments to prove that something is "true"? So if the program evolves to be more forgetful but more intuitive, is this better? I could imagine several "intelligence" trade-offs you'd need to make between rigorous knowledge and making a guess with the right balance difficult to determine until well down the line... Is intelligence really linear where there is a clear "better" in all situations for all types of problems that can easily be selected for?